gbh cases

• Grievous bodily harm


  Harm that does not have to be life-threatening
• In Saunders (1985) it was held that harm does not have to be life threatening and there only has to be ‘serious harm’
• In Bollom (2004) it was held that the severity of the injuries should be assessed according to the victim's age and health
• R v Bollom 2004 As there was no cut, it was held that : this was not a wound. The cut must be of the whole skin, so that a scratch is not considered a wound.

  1. A 17-month-old child had bruising to her abdomen, both arms and left leg

  2. D was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm

  3. The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction and substituted a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm

  4. The Court of Appeal stated that bruising could amount to grievous bodily harm
• In Burstow (1997) where the victim of a stalker suffered a severe depressive illness as a result of his conduct, it was decided that serious psychiatric injury can be grievous bodily harm
• Maliciously


  (in the context of s20 offence) does not require any ill will towards the person injured, it simply means either: intending to cause some harm, or being reckless as to whether some harm of the same kind would be caused
• In Cunningham (1957) it was held that 'maliciously' in the context of s20 offence does not require any ill will towards the person injured. Just means: an intention to cause V SOME harm or having recklessness as to whether some harm will occur
• R v Dica

  • The defendant had had unprotected sex with two women without telling them he was HIV-positive
  • Both women became infected as a result Held: Transmittion of disease through sexual intercourse can be GBH
• Brown v Stratton 1998

  Collection of relatively minor injuries can be GBH
• R v Pagett

  ‘But for’ test

  Girlfriend wouldn’t have died from being shot at by police if D didn’t use her as a human shield
• R v Kimsey

  More than a slight or trifling link to end result
• R v Blaue

  ‘Thin skull rule‘ D must take V as he finds him

  • Blaue- D still cause of V’s death even when she refused blood transfuion on religious grounds, he’s still liable (characteristic issue)
• R v Hayward

  (thin skull rule)

  • D liable for wife’s death even tho he didn’t know about her thyroid condition when he shouted at her (physical weakness issue)
• Men’s rea for s20 OAPA 1861

  • Savage (1991) MR for s20 is maliciously —> means either intention or recklessness to inflict some harm
• R v Mohan 1976

  • Direct intention to inflict some harm - did everything in his power to bring about result
• R v Parameter

  • No need for D to intend or foresee serious injury but he must realise risk of SOME injury
  • Parameter- D injured 3month baby throwing her in air — convicted of s20 offence but conviction quashed to assault occasioning in ABH as he did not foresee any injury
• MR for s18

  • R v Belfon — D must have specific intent to cause GBH
• R v Woollin 1998

  • Oblique intention - D did act which was virtually certain to cause GBH and D realised this
  • — D threw baby to ground out of frustration— virtually certain GBH would occur and D appreciated this
• Chain of causation cases

  • Medical negligence- Jordan: antibiotic caused allergic reaction and V died
  • Contributon of others - R v Paget:
  • breaks chain only if it's not reasonably foreseeable
  • Victims own acts- R v Robert's ---'daft test' if Vs acts regarded as daft then chain broken